• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buddhism and numbers incompatible?

Is Buddhism an effective system for understanding the nature of the universe, like science? Or more like religion, having unsubstantiated ideas about the world? I ask in response to LU:
Math, physics, all these things do an amazing job explaining the universe, right up to a certain point (moments after the big bang, the really tiny and really big things, making the really tiny things fit with the really big things). Could the break-down in math/physics at key points be a result of our silly, yet efficient little “name game”? And if we recognize the fault is ours, now what?
Click to expand...

that is not what the buddha taught, the buddha did not argue about the ontology or existance of the world, he made an argument that there is no place for the self to reside (jason believes differently), all in the world is transitory and changing. there is no place for a self to reside, there is a body, there are sensation, there are thoughts, there are feelings, there are habits but the idea of 'me' outside of this aggregate of body, sensations, thought, emotions and habits does not exist. so too numbers do not exist they are human constructs.
Click to expand...

So how might a Buddhist apply this to her life?
 
I'm guessing the vast majority of modern day Buddhists use numbers in their everyday life? Maybe the point is not that numbers are incompatible or nonexistent to Buddhists, but that they are more interested in loftier, more ambiguous, cosmic thoughts? And less interested in spending time on material objects and petty, inconsequential things? Or am I getting this wrong?
 
jimtron said:
Is there evidence that all things are interconnected?
Click to expand...

Connected in the sense that if I move a bit here, something over there moves? Or connected in the sense that if I understand this bit here, then I can understand that bit there? Science itself assumes we can do the latter.

"Seeing the universe in a grain of sand" is like that line from Superman I. Lex Luthor is orating to his henchpeople, and says: "Some people can read the recipe on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe." And henchman 1 reads said wrapper, looking very thoughtful.

Still, to give Lex his due...
I never would have guessed Kryptonite would be lethal to a Kryptonian.

That's probably because I cannot see the universe in a grain of sand.
 
Last edited:
jimtron said:
If we can't define Buddhism, I'm not sure we can determine if it's compatible or not with numbers.
Click to expand...

But we could try and determine if the particular facet of Buddhism in the OP is compatible with numbers.

I think maths is where it is easiest to see the (nature of the) whole within a part.
 
Which nature of the universe? (or its components)
Chemistry, biology, physics, psychology, sociology....?
Click to expand...
Any of these.

Connected in the sense that if I move a bit here, something over there moves? Or connected in the sense that if I understand this bit here, then I can understand that bit there? Science itself assumes we can do the latter.
Click to expand...

Is there evidence that everything is interconnected according to Buddhist ideas.

But we could try and determine if the particular facet of Buddhism in the OP is compatible with numbers.
Click to expand...

OK, let's begin. Maybe LU could define his/her idea of what Buddhism is.

If we can't define Buddhism, I don't see how we can figure out the thread title question.
 
FireGarden: Did you like maths at school? Or did you feel that maths was rote memorization, and geography was more natural? Physics and history were about on par. Math was fun but too mechanistic (I hear it gets better higher up, but I could only squeeze Calc II in), I prefer stories although algorithms are fine.

jimtron: Can Buddhism explain what happened moments after the big bang, or really tiny/big things, etc?
I bet a Buddhist could care less about the big bang. The idea is to be in the here and now. For this thread I am taking what appears to be a sound idea in Buddhism- interconnectedness and change, and trying to figure out if this is truly as well supported of an idea as it appears, or whether it is faith and numbers win out. If the former is true, what happens to numbers?
Is there evidence that all things are interconnected? From a Buddhist perspective? In Old Path White Clouds an example was given of a leaf on a tree. This leaf receives energy from the sun (which is quite remarkable given the sun is ~150 million kilometer away). So starting at the leaf you look at all the things on which the leaf depends, the sun, the soil and its nutrients, the air, water etc. Then look at the things the leaf is connected to and examine what they require in order to be: soil requires weathering and erosion, nutrients require decomposition, the sun, in order to have formed required a collection of interstellar gasses etc. Then look at all the things that in turn depend of the leaf, deer, rabbits, bugs, etc. which may in turn be decomposed later for the leaf, or though some other process influence the leaf once again. And on and on. From a scientific perspective: I think this question is now being explored in the field of marcoecology. I don’t know enough about the field to feel comfortable saying anything about it.
Is Buddhism an effective system for understanding the nature of the universe, like science? Or more like religion, having unsubstantiated ideas about the world? Unsubstantiated? Not necessarily. The facet I am focusing on is more of a philosophy, there is a great deal of logic involved, and certainly observation, but I don’t think it provides the same “factual” understanding of the universe that science does. The issue I’m having is that it seems to propose a good argument against the idea that we can truly have a “factual” understanding of the universe. Which is a mind trip and freak out for me because I have spent more years than I care to remember in school getting all the little facts.
I'm guessing the vast majority of modern day Buddhists use numbers in their everyday life? Probably. I can’t speak for the Buddhist of the world, but I would imagine you are correct. Again, I don’t think (although I could be wrong???) that this is an issue of organized religion. My problem is that there is this great idea which appears to be relatively well supported that asserts that fractionation of the universe into parts will ultimately result in a false (although false to what degree???) picture of the universe.
FireGarden:
Connected in the sense that if I move a bit here, something over there moves? Or connected in the sense that if I understand this bit here, then I can understand that bit there?Both. But I’m guessing more the former.
 
So starting at the leaf you look at all the things on which the leaf depends, the sun, the soil and its nutrients, the air, water etc. Then look at the things the leaf is connected to and examine what they require in order to be: soil requires weathering and erosion, nutrients require decomposition, the sun, in order to have formed required a collection of interstellar gasses etc. Then look at all the things that in turn depend of the leaf, deer, rabbits, bugs, etc. which may in turn be decomposed later for the leaf, or though some other process influence the leaf once again.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would disagree with the above--scientist, atheist, Jew, Muslim, or Christian. But Buddhism gets more cosmic or religious, no?

Is Buddhism an effective system for understanding the nature of the universe, like science? Or more like religion, having unsubstantiated ideas about the world? Unsubstantiated? Not necessarily.
Click to expand...
If some of it is backed up with evidence, could you please elaborate? Which uniquely Buddhist ideas have been objectively verified with evidence?

The issue I’m having is that it seems to propose a good argument against the idea that we can truly have a “factual” understanding of the universe.
Click to expand...
What's stopping us from understanding at least some aspects of the universe factually? Of course there are many unanswered questions, but on the other hand using the scientific method we have learned a great deal about the universe. What, if anything, does Buddhism teach us about the universe that facts and/or science cannot? Or are you saying the universe is unknowable?

'm guessing the vast majority of modern day Buddhists use numbers in their everyday life? Probably. I can’t speak for the Buddhist of the world, but I would imagine you are correct.
Click to expand...
So if the vast majority of Buddhists use numbers in their every day life (which is only a guess by me), then it would be fair to say that Buddhism and numbers are compatible, right? I would think it would be hard to live in today's world without using numbers.

My problem is that there is this great idea which appears to be relatively well supported that asserts that fractionation of the universe into parts will ultimately result in a false (although false to what degree???) picture of the universe.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain how this is well supported? How do you know that "fractionation of the universe into parts will... result in a false picture of the universe"? Would Buddhism offer a more accurate, less "false" picture of the universe?

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm curious to hear your views on this.
 
The Official Dalai Lama Web site says, on the home page, "His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet." Apparently Buddhism and numbers are not incompatible according to him. And this page seems to rely on numbers. And this exerpt from a prayer by DL #14: "Words of Truth:"
Buddha's full teachings dispel the pain of worldly
existence and self-oriented peace;
May they flourish, spreading prosperity and happiness through-
out this spacious world.

O holders of the Dharma: scholars
and realized practitioners;
May your ten fold virtuous practice prevail.
(bold added)
Click to expand...


Also, the Dalai Lama does have use for science; he is interested in the neuroscience of meditation. And wants Tibetans to get a modern education, including science.
 
jimtron said:
I'm guessing the vast majority of modern day Buddhists use numbers in their everyday life? Maybe the point is not that numbers are incompatible or nonexistent to Buddhists, but that they are more interested in loftier, more ambiguous, cosmic thoughts? And less interested in spending time on material objects and petty, inconsequential things? Or am I getting this wrong?
Click to expand...

In my personal opinion, Buddhist practice can be just the opposite, helping one to cut through ambiguous thoughts and come into more immediate contact with reality right here and now -- reality that we might otherwise regard as petty or inconsequential.

One problem in trying to discuss the OP is that there are many different kinds of "Buddhism," lots of different traditions and variations. I don't think it's practical to try to define "Buddhism" for the purposes of the OP unless we're zeroing in on a particular tradition.

I think that in many traditions, however, people would agree that numbers very much are compatible with practice. The eightfold path is about living in this world and working with reality as we experience it right now. For example, you have right livelihood. For most of us, our jobs involve numbers at least some of the time. If we are going to practice right livelihood in our jobs, then we have to work with numbers. Practice starts right where you are.

The whole philosophical discussion about whether interconnectedness somehow negates the validity of numeric reference points seems to me like a distraction from what the Buddhist path is all about.

That said, there is something poetic about the notion that numbers might be meaningless in Buddhism, which teaches the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the triple gem, the five aggregates, the twelve nidanas, and on and on.
 
jimtron said:
Is Buddhism an effective system for understanding the nature of the universe, like science? Or more like religion, having unsubstantiated ideas about the world? I ask in response to LU:



So how might a Buddhist apply this to her life?
Click to expand...

Um, by recognising the effect that being attached to the pleasurable and avoiding the unpleasant has on one's life. By realizing there are a lot of things to worry about that are just not really imporatant. taking care of the body is important, if the body is not healthy there is ill health. taking care of the thoughts is important, if the thoughts are not healthy there is ill health. taking care of the emotions is important, if the emotions are unhealthy there is ill health. taking care of the habits is important, if the habits are unhealthy there is ill health.

by persuing the dragons tail of pleasure and running from the ogre's fist of the unpleasant one can waste considerable time on things that don't exist.

enjoy pleasure, accept the unpleasant, change what one can.
 
jimtron said:
I'm guessing the vast majority of modern day Buddhists use numbers in their everyday life? Maybe the point is not that numbers are incompatible or nonexistent to Buddhists, but that they are more interested in loftier, more ambiguous, cosmic thoughts? And less interested in spending time on material objects and petty, inconsequential things? Or am I getting this wrong?
Click to expand...


Weeeel, the eightfold path is rather concrete in that it addresses only behaviors. yet as the dao de ching says 'the path is straight and broad but people are easily distracted'.
 
Loriciferan Universe said:
Physics and history were about on par. Math was fun but too mechanistic (I hear it gets better higher up, but I could only squeeze Calc II in), I prefer stories although algorithms are fine.
Click to expand...

The way maths is taught can be mechanistic. But, even early on, there are alternatives to rote memorisation.

FireGarden:
Connected in the sense that if I move a bit here, something over there moves? Or connected in the sense that if I understand this bit here, then I can understand that bit there?Both. But I’m guessing more the former.
Click to expand...

Your leaf example is the former. But I can't see even a hint of the former in the phrase "Seeing the universe in a grain of sand". However, checking you OP, I note that you didn't use any verbs at all in your quote.

“the universe in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour”

Maybe the quote I'm thinking of isn't directly Buddhist.

To see a world in a grain of sand
and a heaven in a wild flower,
hold infinity in the palm of your hand
and eternity in an hour.
-William Blake

I didn't know how much Buddhism Blake was exposed to. So I did a bit of googling. You might enjoy this:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/ferrar1.htm


In Songs of Expenrience (1794) it is a common fly that Blake identifies with:

Am not I
a fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?


In Ch'an Buddhism this identification plays a key role in
shaping the philosophy of the Bodhisattva, and even develops
into the Mahayana doctrine of "mind only'' which is advocated
by the Lankavatara Sutra. This sutra states that "When there
takes place a revulsion at the seat of discrimination by
realizing that external objects are appearances or
manifestations of of one's own mind, then there is
deliverance, which is not annihilation."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure yet, but solipsism doesn't seem far off.

Of course, poets can't force us to interpret their work the way they intended. I still take it to mean understanding the whole through experience of a part. Hyperbole, of course. Because a world is more complex than a grain of sand. But a great verse.

I wonder if it's representative of the rest of the poem.
;)
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
BTW, 90% of what passes as buddhism is something to be sceptical of, maybe 93% or 87%.
Click to expand...

Okay, how about the non-sketchy Buddhists? All I'm really wondering about here in a precept in Buddhism, not the whole thing. I am sure Buddhist use numbers, just like good Catholic boys use condoms, it's matter of modern necessity. What I am wondering is if numbers are just a made up little thing that make life easier, or something that is actually a property of the universe. As far as I can tell a Buddhist would say its just a made up thing. And that appears to be the general consensus here as well. But then there is an issue. If they are made up, how can we be sure we are actually using them in a way that tells us something about the universe?

And yes, there are a myriad of examples that support numbers, suggesting there is some "truth" in organizing the world this way. But there are also many examples where they don't work. Now science has a long way to go and maybe one day someone will get EVERYTHING to work out. But until then it is interesting to ponder whether they CAN work...
 
I am sure Buddhist use numbers, just like good Catholic boys use condoms, it's matter of modern necessity.
Click to expand...
The Pope (if I'm not mistaken) says it's wrong for Catholics to use condoms. There are no Buddhist leaders suggesting that Buddhists shouldn't use numbers, as far as I know. The Dalai Lama uses numbers. I still haven't seen evidence that numbers and Buddhism are incompatible--we don't know that to be true, do we?

As far as I can tell a Buddhist would say its just a made up thing.
Click to expand...
As is Buddhism--a made up thing. What's wrong with numbers? On the official Dalai Lama Web site, numbers are used often. Numbers help us communicate, and help with science, etc.

If they are made up, how can we be sure we are actually using them in a way that tells us something about the universe?
Click to expand...
Numbers and math helped us put men on the Moon, and robots on Mars. Numbers and Math help us eliminate diseases. If Buddhism is made up, how can we be sure Buddhists are actually using it in a way that tells us something about the universe?

Again, what's wrong with numbers? To me it seems they're quite beneficial in many ways. Where's the downside? And are they more of a construct than Buddhism? Or language?

And yes, there are a myriad of examples that support numbers, suggesting there is some "truth" in organizing the world this way. But there are also many examples where they don't work. Now science has a long way to go and maybe one day someone will get EVERYTHING to work out. But until then it is interesting to ponder whether they CAN work...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by this--could you provide an example of when numbers don't work (I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to understand your point). Has science or Buddhism taught us more about the universe?
 
Last edited:
jimtron said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this--could you provide an example of when numbers don't work (I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to understand your point). Has science or Buddhism taught us more about the universe?
Click to expand...

Okay okay. Let’s forget Buddhism on the whole, bad title to the tread. Sorry. Rather, I’m just focusing on the issue of compete interconnectedness, the idea stands without Buddhism backing it up, or at least as far as I can tell (that’s why I’m here). As for where numbers might not work? Well, I’m not formally trained in math. Biology. Not math. But from what I’ve heard there is an issue with expressing the universe in mathematical terms right near the beginning of the Big Bang. Another place might be a unified Theory of Everything (putting the big big and the small small stuff together).
I’m not concerned about what Buddhists tell us is true. I stopped listening with blind faith when my mom told me Santa wasn’t real. My issue is that we label things as discrete things and then create models and concepts based on this idea. But is there anything to suggests that the idea of a discrete thing if founded on anything other than assumption (something Buddhism suggests)? I would be interested on your opinion on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom